131–140 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the intent of yours? Are you not able to understand a simple interrogatory sentence? That seems unbelievable, given that you clearly know how to write them.
Okay... So you just want to know why RMS has posted pictures online? How is that relevant to original post at all?
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…
But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2. The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a part…
Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attention to ads, but they wouldn't watch the ads if there wasn't a value in Facebook itself. Seems to be a win-win relationship.
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…
Yes yes, let's focus on the superficial components of his arguments via false equivalences and ignore the very legitimate criticisms he makes. RMS argues like an idiot therefore Facebook is probably blameless. Progress.
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…
couldn't agree more :)
(This is to reduce comments that don't add value to the conversation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't add people you know In real life and don't let people you know friend you.
I have two family members and one friend who are school teachers. All use fake names[0] on Facebook because they don't want to be harrassed by parents or students online. Apparently, it is very common (both the harassment and teachers using aliases) [0] Usually a real first name with an altered/shortened surname
Until students find out the account and report it to facesbook so it could be deleted?
Brexit for Facebook - really? Is that all we learned from this recent referendum? Yes, it is weird to have this much personal information about so many people in the world in the hands of a corporation. But Facebook serves a real need - to connect. And they do it well. The problem is real - we need to have a non-commercial entity run this. But if Facebook dies tomorrow another company will take its place. How do we s…
Where in the article is "Brexit for Facebook", or anything similar? I don't understand your comment, please clarify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2. The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a part…
They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves. Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attentio…
C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim to the contrary is highly suspect.
This is only to reiterate that the target market of Facebook does not include those who wish to maintain a greater level of privacy by not using it.
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…
RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't add people you know In real life and don't let people you know friend you.
I have two family members and one friend who are school teachers. All use fake names[0] on Facebook because they don't want to be harrassed by parents or students online. Apparently, it is very common (both the harassment and teachers using aliases) [0] Usually a real first name with an altered/shortened surname
If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Example 1: someone is trying to convince me to vote Republican. They go through the Republican platform issue by issue, and compare/contrast it to the Democrats' stand. However, every time they use the word "Democrat" they instead say "Democrap"…
It's a bit of a long read, but David Foster Wallace's Tense Present[1] proposes something about language which I believe to be true. Wallace proposes that language communicates two things: 1) its direct meaning, and 2) the membership of the speaker/writer in a discourse group--that is, a community which uses a specific dialect. I think that your reaction to Stallman's choices of words is not to the direct meaning of Stallman's words, but to the communication of Stallman's discourse group. He's using a dialect, one which he had a large part in creating.
I don't think you can argue easily that Stallman is using the word "used" incorrectly in this writing, but it's easy to see how it's offputting and even a little insulting. And more importantly, it's exclusionary--when Stallman uses a dialect that we don't use, he's establishing himself as being in a different discourse group of which you and I are not a member. Or to put in your words, he's preaching to the choir. It's normal for humans to react negatively to being excluded in this way.
But the flipside of that is that specialized dialects serve to elevate the discourse of a discourse group on topics that interest that discourse group. There are rumors that Eskimos have X > 10 words for "snow", but we can observe the same thing in dialects of English: Medical English differentiates between a break and a fracture and borrows frequently from Latin, Programmer English uses "tree", "heap", "loop", etc. in ways that non-programmers never use them, Psychology English has specific meanings for "narcissist" and "OCD" that differ significantly from their usage in other English dialects. These differences are exclusionary, but their purpose isn't exclusion, it's as a shorthand for complex ideas that otherwise wouldn't be pragmatically possible to express in other dialects of English. It's not just preaching to the choir. These dialects were created to allow specific and accurate communication of the ideas of their discourse group.
I think that, at some level, that's what Stallman is trying to do. It does come across a bit heavy handed: while most dialects occur organically to meet the needs of their discourse groups, Stallman's dialect is to some extent synthetically created by Stallman. But Stallman's dialect does, to some extent, meet the needs of a discourse group. I, for example, find it very useful to differentiate between Free (Libre), Free (Gratis), and Open Source. These aren't differences which can be talked about as succinctly without Stallman's dialect, but they are differences that have deep implications for our society.
I agree with you that this usage of language is apt to alienate people who aren't members of Stallman's discourage group (or in your words, alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate). But the same can be said of other dialects: Feynman, for example, talks about how Physicists start by teaching students models which are fundamentally incorrect, and iteratively change the model until the student understands a model closer and closer to the truth[2]. I'm not sure Stallman understands the implications of his jarring use of language for the uninitiated, and I think he would be more effective if he shifted his dialect to match the discourse group of his audience.
However, I do think Stallman fills an extremely valuable role by defining the language of this discourse group. There are many advocates of Free (Libre) Software who use more accessible language when talking to a more general audience. I like to think that I'm one of them--I've adopted a bit more of Stallman's dialect for this post than usual. But when talking with members of Stallman's discourse group I shift more toward Stallman's dialect, and this elevates the conversation. There are lots of people effectively advocating Free Software, but there aren't many people contributing to the creation of a dialect around Free Software.
It's also worth noting the level of control that corporations, politicians, and other political organizations exert over the dialect you're using. I'd posit that the dialect of English you are comfortable with using makes a distinction between "user" and "used" that is not representative of the phenomena those words describe, and that is largely because of the influence of the dialect Wallace calls "Advertising English" on your own dialect of English.
[1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
[2] I think this is described in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, but I'm having trouble finding a link; anyone care to help?